Estonia, Latvia Find Common Ground on Rail Baltic Plan

[RussiaPrussia]

A high speed rail line is proposed, but I think with the volume of trade it would soon be out of capacity, even if many lines were laid in parallel (like lanes on a motorway). Organizing it would be a nightmare. Only with a Trans Eurasia railway would a link to the Baltic and Western Europe be any use, and only really as a stop on the way, not really as a destination.


Existing lines.

No it wouldnt,

it would be actually a huge blow for america who controls all the sea routes and therefor the trade which they invested billions into heavy air craft carries who would become uselles if it would be realized. But it wont because thats not what america and american puppets want.

[Pure ja]

(baltic) sea is always cheaper than railways. But upgrading thier seaports will require less EU money, and so less free foreign money to boost thier pathetic economies...

With the impending long-period sealevel rise due to anthropogenic global warming, the sea levels will not stabilise for millennia, at least. Each century will bring about 2-10 meter sealevel rise. So one would need to relocate most of the seaports at least once per century.

Of course, if this carries on to its conclusion, 60m sealevel rise (actually, the glaciers provide 73 meter rise) would be enough to cut Estonia into a Pandivere island, a Sakala island and a Otepää-Võro island. All land connections to Russia would be lost. Land connections to Latvia would require long bridges. A tunnel to Finland would have to be twice as long.

[Pure ja]

he said baltic sea

Even better, now I can suggest Russia to demolish all its railways and to close all its sea traffic outside of the Baltic Sea.

[Albion]

No it wouldnt,

it would be actually a huge blow for america who controls all the sea routes and therefor the trade which they invested billions into heavy air craft carries who would become uselles if it would be realized. But it wont because thats not what america and american puppets want.

What are you talking about?

1) Dominating Estonian trade doesn't feature high on America's list of priorities...
2) American dominated or not, there is very little need for these lines since most freight travels by road.
3) Russia is attempting to open a Northern route through the Arctic Sea to Asia which will be controlled by Russian aircraft carriers, so stop your whinging.
4) Estonian trade is overwhelmingly with the rest of Europe, so by road and short distances around the Baltic. No America aircraft carriers await Estonian trade...

[Pure ja]

I'm not sure if it is wise. In the UK we had great overcapacity from the 19th century which led to some lines being abolished. The railways carry freight, but not nearly as much as the motorways.

BS.
Railways carry many times more freight. Have always done so.

In the future this rail project may become important if fuel become prohibitively expensive, but it's not likely.

Sure. It is not like the oil usage of the OECD countries have been in decline since 2005.
And it is not like the North Sea oil production has been in decline.
And it it is not like Peak Oil is here, or imminent, or even theoretically possible. The most likely future scenario is endless growth of economy, including fossil fuel economies.

It sounds a bit like a red herring, it's a rail project in a group of small countries to connect them to where exactly?

To the rest of EU.

The region is more sparsely populated than most of Western Europe and road links are decent. I don't think it's needed.

The region is more densely populated than the US.
The road links are deteriorating due to rising costs of fossil fuel economy.

And I guess that a lot of western europeans forget the fifth season in eastern Europe - the time of "vanishing of roads" (teedeminek), which has sunk quite a many dreams of conquering Russian Empire. Railroads are more resilient and persistent.

Also, Estonia is a region with perhaps one of the highest frequency of night-day fluctuations below and above zero Celsius - which erodes roads. And only northern Estonia has sporadic strong rocky base-layer.

One can argue about the economy of railroads for bullet trains, but one cannot say that railroads are not efficient.

[Pure ja]

We have the same rail problems here, a lot of bad decicions imo. Although here its the opposite, better rail is good because of distance

The most vocal stakeholders for the new fast Via Baltica (correction: Rail Baltica) railway are the EU citizens from western Europe who are used to traveling on trains.

[Aunt Hilda]

Latvia ranked way behind Estonia, Lithuania in road quality

---

World Economic Forum (WEF) has in its Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report for 2013 ranked Latvia 98th by quality of roads out of 144 countries in the quality of roads, reported news2biz LATVIA.

Lithuania and Estonia rank much better at 32nd and 61st place, respectively, which confirms another often-repeated claim, namely, that Latvian roads are markedly worse than its neighbours'.

WEF report puts Latvian ground transport infrastructure at 44th place. The road quality is the single biggest drawback of the infrastructure which has good road density in relation to population (placed 35th) and good railroad (placed 33th).

Interestingly enough, air transport, which, along with ports, is traditionally seen as Latvia's strongest point, ranks slightly lower at 47th place. The overall score, however, is dragged down by the fact that Latvia has no domestic flights and has a limited number of operating airlines.

Even though the report focuses on tourism, the Latvian public has seized the road quality rating, as Latvian motorists have been complaining about the bad roads for years.

In general, the best roads in the world are in France, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Portugal and Oman. The world’s worst roads are located in Russia, Ukraine, Gabon, Haiti and Moldova.

---

[Pure ja]

Some have proposed a Trans-Eurasia railway, from China's East coast to Western Europe, but such basically exists anyway with Chinese lines connecting to Russia's Trans-Siberian. A high speed rail line is proposed, but I think with the volume of trade it would soon be out of capacity, even if many lines were laid in parallel (like lanes on a motorway). Organizing it would be a nightmare.

Not really, given enough swithching lanes.
That is what network flow solving is all about. We have computers now.

Only with a Trans Eurasia railway would a link to the Baltic and Western Europe be any use, and only really as a stop on the way, not really as a destination.

There is enough interest in train travel among western europeans.
There is no need for a Trans Eurasian railway and that would not pass through the Baltics anyway.

One can argue about the economics of bullet trains, but not about the economics of railway connection to the rest of EU in general.

Really, I think Europe should focus on short haul flights and good regional connections and the roads. The Baltic states certainly don't need a railway.

I disagree.
Rail traffic is the most cost competitive.

The project - Rail Baltica is supposed to provide better links to Northern Europe. In reality it's purely political. It mostly would follow existing lines, but importantly it would bypass Kaliningrad (Russia) and Belarus by creating a new line out of SW Lithuania into Poland - so EU countries only.

Perhaps you should discuss it with finns?
On average, every finn visits Estonia (Mostly Tallinn) about once per year.
All of them are potential customers of that new fast train.

[Pure ja]

I see plenty of lorrys (wagons) from Lithuania here. Most freight in Europe goes via roads and I doubt this will change. Transport by road is competitive - it can go anywhere at any time, it doesn't have to work around rail times nor organize transport to and from the station at either end.

It is competitive only because road maintenance is subsidized by the state. Railroad isn't to the same extent.
And the road damage is not linearly proportional to the weight of a freight truck - it is more like a squared proportional. If the trucks would pay a squared road tax, it would become uncompetitive.

Railways would soon reach capacity and more if modern road freight went via rail.

Railways are not worse in that respect than any ordinary road.

[Albion]

BS.
Railways carry many times more freight. Have always done so.

This comment concerned the UK, it obviously is not bullshit.

In the rest of Europe freight it goes by road. Estonia and the Baltic states use Russian gauge which means that trains can't go directly from Western Europe straight to Estonia without the freight being offloaded onto another train. In border areas of Ukraine they adjust the train, but it takes an hour, not sure if they do that in Lithuania.
Since freight goes overwhelmingly by road in Europe, the share of rail freight in Estonia will likely decline as Estonian freight goes increasingly to Central Europe.

Sure. It is not like the oil usage of the OECD countries have been in decline since 2005.
And it is not like the North Sea oil production has been in decline.
And it it is not like Peak Oil is here, or imminent, or even theoretically possible. The most likely future scenario is endless growth of economy, including fossil fuel economies.

Yeah, so the rest of Europe should invest in Baltic infrastructure that is going to be wasted until oil runs out? Oil isn't going to disappear for at least a few decades yet, and when it does we'll switch to gas - from fields and waste.

To the rest of EU.

I'm not sure why the rest of the EU should fund this, there's little gain for any other EU countries from trade with the Baltic. If the line continued to St Petersburg, with another further south from Poland to Moscow, then it would perhaps be worth while. But to Tallinn? It's hardly worth bothering with.

The region is more densely populated than the US.
The road links are deteriorating due to rising costs of fossil fuel economy.

The US varies. When you say 'more densely populated than the US', you need to take into account the vast emptiness of the Rocky mountains.

And I guess that a lot of western europeans forget the fifth season in eastern Europe - the time of "vanishing of roads" (teedeminek), which has sunk quite a many dreams of conquering Russian Empire. Railroads are more resilient and persistent.

Build your roads as good as the rail lines then. Napoleon's army wasn't travelling on today's tarmac motorways...

Also, Estonia is a region with perhaps one of the highest frequency of night-day fluctuations below and above zero Celsius - which erodes roads. And only northern Estonia has sporadic strong rocky base-layer.

How does this only apply to roads and not rail? If the land shifts, sinks or erodes, than a rail line will go the same as a road. The Baltic states only need one good road from Poland to Tallinn, preferably a motorway.
Rail is only efficient if there are vast spaces between origin and destination of freight.